Flynn reverses guilty plea!

[QUOTE=bambino;1060525805] A motion by Michael Flynn to withdraw his guilty plea based on government misconduct is likely in the works.[/QUOTE]

You were sitting there when he was talking to his lawyers? Originally Posted by LexusLover

FIFY

I think LL was talking to you bambino!

"

Here he goes again! Talking shit about something he knows nothing about!



A "sua sponte" order POST-PLEA BARGAIN by a Federal Judge directed at a prosecutor to hand over all "exculpatory" evidence available to the prosecutor is not a "routine order" ...
Originally Posted by LexusLover

Sullivan enters identical standing orders as a matter of course in all of his criminal cases, as he explained in a 2016 Cardozo Law Review article:

It is a routine order in this Judges case....had you read the article linked, you would have know as much and not questioned my brilliance. Unless you want to argue that someone doing the exact same thing for all is not a routine.










.







.

I think LL was talking to you bambino! Originally Posted by WTF

And you are wrong again!

Flynn lied. Originally Posted by WTF

You were sitting there when he was talking to the investigators? Originally Posted by LexusLover

I think LL was talking to you bambino! Originally Posted by WTF

And you are wrong again! Originally Posted by LexusLover

WTF should stay in the dugout.

It is a routine order in this Judges case.... Originally Posted by WTF

Had you read the procedural events that lead up to the issuance of 2nd discovery order signed by the New Judge in the case you would have realized that the law review article you cited was not relevant to the procedural status of the Flynn case at the time the New Judge signed the last order, which was post-plea!

Anecdotal bullshit about "standing orders" do not apply to discovery orders signed AFTER A PLEA AGREEMENT IS SIGNED AND APPROVED BY THE PRESIDING JUDGE OVER THE CASE.

I don't expect you or 99% of others on here to comprehend it, but a Federal Court plea agreement is not like a plea on a speeding ticket. I doubt that there is even a completed pre-sentence agreement (or objections to a proposed report) to be submitted to the Judge, because apparently Flynn has not yet completed his apparent obligations to the prosecution, which would necessarily be reflected in the pre-sentence report of the Federal Probation Officer assigned to Flynn for the pre-sentence report.

None of that process is then controlled by a "standing discovery order" since the plea agreement would in effect waive any potential discovery disputes, e.g. waiving the reserving of an issue for appeal on disclosure by the Government in the plea agreement.

That's why it is not "customary" and "usual" as you claim through your sources.

There is no "assumption" that Flynn's plea will be overturned or set aside by the signing of this unusual order. Apparently either the Judge saw something in the case file, was informed of a challenge to the plea, or was watching current events unfolding with respect to the FBI handling of the investigation from which Flynn was convicted. The Judge appears to be assuring that ALL potentially exculpatory evidence is delivered to the defense to review and determine if it points to a legal basis to set aside the plea ... and perhaps even dismiss charges against him for misconduct.

Even if he does withdraws guilty plea charges may take place.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...Search+Results

Even if he does withdraws guilty plea charges may take place.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...Search+Results Originally Posted by bamscram

So there is something to it.

Flynn's plea agreement includes an agreement for no prison. So depending on what Mueller has on Flynn, Mueller could still prosecute him I court and he could still be found guilty by a jury. My guess is of Mueller is forced to take it to trial, the no jail time will be taken off the table.

If Flynn thinks he can win with a jury why take the deal in the first place?

That's why it is not "customary" and "usual" as you claim through your sources.

. Originally Posted by LexusLover

It is now customary with this Judge you hard headed Fairy.

can't you fucking read? Or understand wtf you've read.

So every time this judge issues this order are you numbnuts going to declare the perp innocent?

Basically something that does not happen very often but this judge does now all the time means that Flynn is changing his plea.

You know little kids who think there is a Boogie Man, see him at night in the Shadows.

Moral to the story, you Trumpers see what you want to see.

Yeah, you won’t hear this from the MSM. But a week after his guilty plea the original guilty plea the Judge was replaced (probably removed) by a new judge. The new judge has ordered any and all escupatory evidence be turned over to Flynn. Not like Andrew Weismann ever witheld esculpatory evedince before. Flynn didn’t know that his meeting with the FBI was a formal interview. Comey said that he didn’t believe that Flynn lied. Flynn’s sentencing date has been postponed until May. I wonder why? Did the FBI also withold esculpatory evidence to the FISA Court? Lots of corruption going on in DC.


http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/19/...al-corruption/ Originally Posted by bambino

Withholding evidence is bad. It is a bad faith gesture which deserves reproach from honest members of society.

I never get tired of watching you crumble. A true trumpy.
I never claimed to be a legal scholar. It didn't require a legal scholar to kick the shit out of you again.
You tried to act smarter than everybody else with;

"A "sua sponte" order POST-PLEA BARGAIN by a Federal Judge directed at a prosecutor to hand over all "exculpatory" evidence available to the prosecutor is not a "routine order"

You google a legal expression, pretending you aren't clueless while ignoring the facts of the story. Facts that had already been posted in the thread.

Once again you flapped your gums when you should have been reading.

Because that's all it took this time. Someone who can read English. You don't need to know anything about the law when you read that the judge in question issues that order for every case of his.

You being the pompous douche-bag that you are, missed that obvious fact.

As far as napolitano goes, you tell me why he missed the obvious. It's obvious that he's part of fox now. And it's not in fox's interest to put the baby to bed.

When I said you were right as he was, that isn't quite right.
I should have said he got paid to ignore the facts.
You ignored the facts because you're stupid. And since you aren't smart enough to feel stupid, I'll keep reminding you

He's clearly more "relevant" than you are shit-face on this topic! Now you might know more about getting drunk!

I guess in all of your vast experience you've seen lots of them!

You and WTF! The Legal Scholars!

As for Judge Napoitano he's got more legal knowledge in his little finger than you have or ever will have for the rest of your sorry life in your entire sorry body.

Just admit you're full of shit, and move on. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your judgment in the area of quantifying other people's knowledge is the same as your general intelligence.
A lot less than you think.

Yep, it was fun using you like a tee-ball and then parking your head in the cheap seats in right field.
That's twice today.
One question though.
Who the fuck is Judge Napoitano?

PS Maybe you are a tiny bit smarter. You admitted you were wrong and made no attempt at challenging the facts of the story.

Now dry those tears and get ready for the night shift at 7-11.

WTF should stay in the dugout. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Toy have already shown how little you know about baseball during the World Series.

Honest members of society would recognize this retraction of the plea bargain is a non-story. The newsworthy information, the changing of judges, was reported by CNN and the NYT amongst others.
The speculation about the future is just that. Speculation.
It is Op-Ed, not news.
Not only is withholding evidence is a bad faith action, it is an illegal act. There is no indication or evidence the feds have held back pro-defendant evidence. Just more smoke to confuse things and discredit the FBI and the DOJ.
The case was assigned to a new judge. A judge who issues the order in question for every single criminal case on his docket.
The original judge recused himself. When asked for a reason reporters were told,
"A spokesman for the U.S. District Court in D.C. told the Daily Caller that the court will not release the reason for the recusal, which is typical of a court.
“The court generally does not disclose reasons for recusal,” Lisa Klem said."

Withholding evidence is bad. It is a bad faith gesture which deserves reproach from honest members of society. Originally Posted by friendly fred

I never claimed to be a legal scholar. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

That's a good thing!

You calling your own balls and strikes again?

Actually, I have a grin on .... laughing at you!

"napolitano" ... I my ... I accidentally omitted the "l" in his name.

Are you really that petty? Or does that make you feel "superior" intellectually?

There is no indication or evidence the feds have held back pro-defendant evidence.

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Yea, the Government never does that! But when they do they always announce it to Munchie by an email message so he gets the straight "skinny" from "the Feds"! Where were you during the Nevada/Rancher thread. Asleep or drunk?

Go stick your head back into that latrine of yours and remain ignorant.

Did you post "7-11"? Doesn't that "Trump" leaving out an "l" in a name you posted?

Even if he does withdraws guilty plea charges may take place. Originally Posted by bamscram

It depends. See the Rancher case.

The Judge can sanction the Government.